Anthony Scalia is a brilliant man. But he has misused his mind to rule against the rights of the people saying that he tries to interrupt the original meaning and context of the law, which did not envision an America where women, gays, blacks and others have the same rights as him. He's a legal luddite in many respects but has been quite lenient and creative in giving corporations the same rights as people (in the case of gay people, even more) or finding a legal way to ensure George W. was president in 2000. In many ways, he is representative of the GOP's problem: an entitled white man who finds legal mechanisms to cling to his privileges and the past.
Some in the audience who had come to hear Scalia speak about his book applauded but more of those who attended the lecture clapped at Hosie’s question.
“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,’” Scalia told freshman Duncan Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both. Then he deadpanned: “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”
As Scalia often does in public speaking, he cracked wise, taking aim mostly at those who view the Constitution as a ‘‘living document’’ that changes with the times.
‘It isn’t a living document,’’ Scalia said. ‘‘It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.’’
He said that people who see the Constitution as changing often argue they are taking the more flexible approach. But their true goal is to set policy permanently, he said. ‘‘My Constitution is a very flexible one,’’ he said. ‘‘There’s nothing in there about abortion. It’s up to the citizens. ... The same with the death penalty.’’
No comments:
Post a Comment